In this paper, I first explain the legal theory which leads up to Obergefell v. Hodges, and then analyze Obergefell v. Hodges itself. My analysis leads me to conclude that the legal reasoning, or the argument used to come to the decision, is flawed for it relies too heavily upon public opinion and is a legislative action of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I offer three alternatives: each of which improve upon the legal reasoning in different ways. Furthermore, my analysis of these three arguments\u2014and particularly the Free Exercise Argument\u2014leads me to postulate that there is in fact a Freedom to Practice embedded in the penumbral, or unstated, rights of the United States Constitution. While the full extent of the implications of such a right must be explored in another paper, I establish the legal reasoning for the freedom by four routes, showing that although precedent has yet to materialize, there are several arguments for the freedom.